ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018
Measuring discursive influence across scholarship.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The growing concentration of national influence in global science.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- An Efficient Deep Learning Framework for Revealing the Evolution of Characterization Methods in Nanoscience.Nano-micro letters · 2025Article
- Hidden citations obscure true impact in science.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Judicial hierarchy and discursive influence.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2024Article
- Surprising combinations of research contents and contexts are related to impact and emerge with scientific outsiders from distant disciplines.Nature communications · 2023Article
- A deep-learning model of prescient ideas demonstrates that they emerge from the periphery.PNAS nexus · 2023Article
- Explosive and implosive root concepts: An analysis of music moods rooted by two influential rap artists.PloS one · 2022Article
- A Simple, interpretable method to identify surprising topic shifts in scientific fields.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2022Article
- A method for measuring investigative journalism in local newspapers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Article
- Measuring national capability over big science's multidisciplinarity: A case study of nuclear fusion research.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessing scholarly influence is critical for understanding the collective system of scholarship and the history of academic inquiry. Influence is multifaceted, and citations reveal only part of it. Citation counts exhibit preferential attachment and follow a rigid "news cycle" that can miss sustained and indirect forms of influence. Building on dynamic topic models that track distributional shifts in discourse over time, we introduce a variant that incorporates features, such as authorship, affiliation, and publication venue, to assess how these contexts interact with content to shape future scholarship. We perform in-depth analyses on collections of physics research (500,000 abstracts; 102 years) and scholarship generally (JSTOR repository: 2 million full-text articles; 130 years). Our measure of document influence helps predict citations and shows how outcomes, such as winning a Nobel Prize or affiliation with a highly ranked institution, boost influence. Analysis of citations alongside discursive influence reveals that citations tend to credit authors who persist in their fields over time and discount credit for works that are influential over many topics or are "ahead of their time." In this way, our measures provide a way to acknowledge diverse contributions that take longer and travel farther to achieve scholarly appreciation, enabling us to correct citation biases and enhance sensitivity to the full spectrum of scholarly impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.